Marlo MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'get credit note details', which implies a read operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While technically concise with just three words, this is an example of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information that would help an agent use the tool correctly. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide enough value to justify their inclusion.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving specific entity details), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how results are structured, error handling, or any behavioral aspects. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based on the provided description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the single parameter 'credit_note_id' is undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter—no explanation of what a credit note ID is, where to find it, format requirements, or examples. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is severely lacking.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'get credit note details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'credit note details', but provides no additional clarity about what 'details' includes or how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_all_credit_notes'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate compared to 'list_all_credit_notes' or other sibling tools, or any contextual usage instructions. The agent receives zero guidance on tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.